User talk:Docleaf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to comment

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Docleaf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Lumos3 09:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lumos3Docleaf 14:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests; A Delphi Poll.

Hey, Docleaf. I have been looking for an online version of this poll and haven't been able to find one. Do you have a link or access to the original? If so, do you know what percentage of psychologists view reparative therapy as discredited?Joshuajohanson 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Joshua. I have a hardcopy. It was rated on a five point Likert scale, and it got a really high grade 4.7 (which is highly significant). They don't give the percentile but its going to be very high. It rates alongside alien abduction therapy and similar. Docleaf 01:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you...

... for your addition of secondary-sourced and cited material to the article Crazy Therapies (book). And also, welcome to the project! Smee 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks Smee. I noticed you've done quite a lot of work on maintaining reliable information on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. I've some catching up to do:) Docleaf 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for contributing

Thank you for contributing to the Landmark Education article.

However, your recent [revert] on Landmark Education has been reverted per WP:BRD. The version you attempted to revert contains several controversial items and is currently being discussed.

You are welcome to participate in that discussion on the Talk Page.

Thank you! Peace in God. Lsi john 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to discuss the reversion of high quality sources. Its core NPOV policy to have them in Wikipedia. If you want to discuss rearranging them then go ahead and discuss. But they can appear on the article in any reasonable form because they are well sourced. Docleaf 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Two things: First- I like the scientific literacy article and did a bit of work on it. Check it out and let me know what you think!
Second: If you peruse the Landmark Education talk page back you will see we have had this discussion many times before. What you assert above is not 100% accurate. In the most extreme example, imagine if you have an article on scientific literacy and then people start to put references to Popeye pop culture links. You remove them and they say, "Hey! Those are all reliable, well-sources, and properly cited sources.". Relevance is the key- and our discussions are over relevance. Popeye does not belong on a page on scientific literacy and, for one example, Scientology doesn't belong on a page on Landmark Education. They are more connected than my obviously exaggerated Popeye example but they are at least two steps removed (Werner Erhard and Associates and then to Werner Erhard). So- lets discuss before adding any of that old stuff in.Alex Jackl 04:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
IMO, This discussion should be continued on the article's discussion page, so that all editors have the benefit of information being discussed. At this point, I have no opinion on the edits one way or another. I'm waiting for anyone to argue in favor, rather than simply cite reliable sources. Lsi john
Thank you for your contribution. However, your recent [2RR revert] is counter to WP:BRD. The edit you reverted contains errors and contested material. If you wish to discuss this, please join the discussion Talk:Landmark Education. Please do not revert again. Lsi john 04:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Lsi john. The reversions I did today were constructive. If you wish to offer anything in a similarly constructive effort then I would suggest you search through some good sources and revert according to good sourcing. Docleaf 16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The sourcing was not in question. By doing a major revert backwards over several other edits, you deleted contributions from several editors. My revert was based on wiki policy WP:BRD as there was an existing discussion around items in the version you chose to revert back to. In my opinion, intentionally reverting a second time, to something that is several versions old, and causing edits from several editors to be wiped out, is disrespectful to those editors and to the process.
I thought I was very respectful to you here and I tried to explain what was going on and I invited you to participate. If you feel that it is too much of an inconvenience to address the concerns of the other involved editor, then perhaps you could provide links to prior conversations which reflect and fully explain your views on the material in question. Lsi john 01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science/Practitioner gap in psychology / psychotherapy

You've been making a few changes science/practitioner gap section on the psychology article. I think we need to discuss what examples should be included and what sources should be used. Do you think it should include something about Freud's psychoanalysis? The psychology department at my university is strong on experimental research so they are critical of Freud. It seems the predominant view is that Freud's psychoanalytic theories are unfalsifiable and his theories are mainly taught for its historical significance and the students can understand what previous researchers are talking about. Freud still has a major influence on personality theory for its claimed explanatory power. There is still quite a following of psychoanalysis so we need to be careful how it is framed. --Comaze 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sourced views that mention Freud in the science practitioner gap material? If so it may be acceptable. Whatever your university, experimental research is paramount in psychology. The science view is the majority view. The same is true on Wikipedia. In fact, if you can find any science oriented views on any examples of the science/practitioner gap then it may be useful. Docleaf 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Experimental research has its place and its the only form of psych research that can unambiguously establish causation. But unfortunately it has limited external validity and must be, therefore, used in combination with other methods, ie. correlational, descriptive, naturalistic, etc. I wouldn't be so quick to assert that "science view is the majority view". Can you expand on exactly what you mean by that? --Comaze 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
[1]Docleaf 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That clears it up. thanks. --Comaze 15:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Sexual self-determination

A tag has been placed on Sexual self-determination requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The Helpful One (Talk) (Contributions) 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of account

This account has been indefinitely blocked. It is a reincarnation of an editor that uses multiple sockpuppets and that has been community-banned and blocked on multiple occasions in the past under different names.

Apologies it took so long to notice. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't mention it. Your blatant and self-serving effigy burning [2] has consistently failed to stop me from improving Wikipedia. Some editors simply don't give a toss about brownie points or currying favour. Its the articles that count and I've improved every one that I have worked upon according to NPOV policies and in cooperation with other editors. Your contributions show that you have spent a lot of your energy on making sure that your interests are pushed and supported by others with strong bias and vested interests. But shame for you that its facts that will win long term. Most of the facts you have tried to squash are all there in painful view, and its inevitable that someone will present the remainder. Happy new year. Docleaf (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)